Agreed, that seems to be the best solution.[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 11:27, 2 August 2006 (MST)

Agreed, that seems to be the best solution.[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 11:27, 2 August 2006 (MST)

+

+

: When creating the disambiguation pages for [[Matthew]] and [[John]], I used [[Book of Matthew]] and [[Book of John]] because the rest of this wiki doesn't seem to tend toward Wikipedia's "''word'' (''specificier'')" style.

While the Pat Condell video is his usual good stuff, I fail to see how it stands out from a hundred other videos that make similar points, or how it illustrates the topic of the page. In short, it seems to have been added purely for snark value. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 13:41, 26 May 2009 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 12:41, 26 May 2009

Should there be a naming scheme for the pages discussing specific books of the Bible? Right now, they're just named "Genesis", "Exodus", "Job", and so forth. But Revelation is about the experience, not the book.

In keeping with the "Wikipedia's been at this a long time" guideline, I suggest renaming Genesis as "Genesis (Bible)" or "Genesis (book of the Bible)", and so forth.

Books of the Bible appears twice

Now that we have this nifty template on the side of the page, isn't it redundant to also list the books of the Bible within the body of the article? --Kazim 11:26, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Probably. Done. If anyone disagrees, you know how to revert. --Arensb 10:53, 28 February 2007 (CST)

Pat Condell video

While the Pat Condell video is his usual good stuff, I fail to see how it stands out from a hundred other videos that make similar points, or how it illustrates the topic of the page. In short, it seems to have been added purely for snark value. --Arensb 13:41, 26 May 2009 (CDT)